Very old and interesting newsgroup discussion about
the P-40’s fighting qualities by a former Flying Tiger,
Erik Shilling.

http://yarchive.net/mil/p40.html

You were right, Mr Mackay, the P-40 could not really
dogfight above 20,000 feet, even the F model, and had
trouble climbing above that height, the N model being the only
exception. Surprisingly, they were able to outroll and
outdive both the Bf109 and Zero, and outturn the Bf109
as well.

A Merlin 61/Packard V-1650-3 or Allison V-1710-119/121
with their two-speed, two-stage superchargers may
well have pushed its effective ceiling to 25,000 feet.

I wonder if it might have been possible to install the
Allison’s turbocharger used in the P-38 too.

Quoted from the link above :

” Performance of the P-40E and K fell off rapidly above 18,000 ft.;
above about 20,000 for the F and above about 22,000 ft or so for
the N. (The F had the Packard Merlin with a single-stage
two-speed mech. supercharger and the N was significantly lightened. The K had
more power than the E, but began pooping out at about the same altitude as the
E. However, it could carry a bigger bomb load–the E a 500 lber and the K and
1,000 lber over the same range.

On the E or K, 22,000 ft. could be achieved with reasonable performance, but
above that full throttle would barely manage to keep the airplane flying
slightly faster than stalling speed. Raising the nose ever so slightly–or even
firing the guns while straight and level–could knock it into a stall,
depending on how good the engine was running that day and how good the pilot’s
reactions were. It took some careful stick handling to wheeze up above 25,000
ft. It was done, too, with 49FG P-40s intercepting Japanese bombers above that
altitude. Pilots flying the N model were able to intercept and shoot down
Dinah recon planes flying at 31,000 ft., but only after long chases. But no
model P-40 was in its element at those altitudes. The 109 could at least
operate in the 25,000 to 28,000 ft. environment with some degree of performance margin.

The best the P-40 could do was hope to be above its foe and in
position to make a diving attack. Were it attacked at that altitude, if the
P-40 driver was not sufficiently quick to recognize the danger and dive away,
he was in serious trouble. On one raid over Darwin, P-40Es were at 26,000 ft.
positioning themselves to attack Japanese bombers at 22,000 ft. when they were hit by the Zero escort diving from above. The Curtiss machines were helpless
to counter a fighter threat at that altitude and three P-40s went down
immediately, the greatest single loss of the entire Darwin campaign. “/

Quite correct Tham. It is an odd thing but the later P38s had basically the same Allison engine as the P40s but they had much better superchargers. The problem for the P40 and the P39 was that both aircraft had less efficient superchargers, principally to conserve weight. The first P51, the A, also had an Allison engine and was an absolutely superb fighter below 15,000 feet. Its basic defect like the P40 was supercharger problems. P51As continued in service until the end of the war in specialised fast low level roles and did excellent jobs.

There is nothing to suggest that if these types had been given better superchargers and uprated engines, that they wouldn’t have been very useful fighters. But the problems of development were a stumbling block and with the Merlin available from American production, and the improvements built into the Packard version meant that there was little need to go down that path.

The P40 family, especially the D and later models were rugged efficient aircraft who found their niche away from that hothouse of fighter development, the ETO. But by 1944 their day was past. In a way the P40 and the Hurricane are alike – both were there when they were needed and both were rugged and dependable.

I was thinking.
How would the F86 have done against the MIG17?
Anyone have any ideas?

PLANEGUY51

I think the F86 may have come off second best. The Mig 17 was a very good fighter and had both the edge in speed and manoeverability. Plus its heavy cannon armament was quite lethal.

There is a comment by a Syrian pilot flying Mig17s against Israeli aircraft in the Yom Kippur War. He went into battle thinking that the Israeli Phantoms would make mince meat of him. What he found was that he if he got in close the Israeli jets weren’t such a problem.

Certainly in North Vietnam the NVAF pilots built up some good kill totals against the American fighter bombers and the Mig was able to outfly the AAMs. Pure fighters like the Crusader were a different kettle of fish though, but they were a generation ahead of the Mig.

One wonders about how good the Australian Avon engined Sabre might have been in combat. Best performance of all the Sabre family, but IMHO rather a waste of the taxpayers’ dollars. By the time the RAAF finally got them after that long running saga of designing a whole new fuselage, fighter design had moved well into Mach1+ designs.

We would have been better sticking to the standard F86E or F and then transitioning earlier to the next generation – we could simply have bought them of the shelf. As I recall the RAAF wanted to try the same trick of re-engining on the Mirage – fortunately that got stopped or given the snail like manner in which we Australians make military decisions we’d still be awaiting delivery of them.

Hi Ian, yes it was. Many thanks. I can’t believe the performace was equal (low) to the Alinson engined version or (high) to the later Merlin engined versions, due to that nose. There was also a mid-engined Merlin version tried in mock up only IIRC.

Anyone know what they achieved with these?

Actually it was less a question of performance and more of production facilities. The RR conversion while a bit ugly produced good results, however there was simply not the facilities to produce sufficient Merlins in the UK to meet the demand. Accordingly the change to the Merlin was done in the US using the Packard built engines and the NA modifications. This also allowed the redesigned North American developed radiator to be installed. Its aerodynamic design boosted the P51’s performance.

That’s a very simplified overview BTW – several large articles have been written about it. 😀

I think Mr Alan Brooks above is correct.

The V-1650-1 Packard Merlin engine installed in
the P-40F was, I believe, a 1,280 hp Merlin 28.

The P-51B got the V-1650-3 Packard, a Merlin 61.

The P-40 was an obsolete design, but not that
hopelessly inferior. I remember reading, in a book
chronicalling the daily air combat during the war,
that P-40Fs did shoot down quite a few Bf-109Fs
in the North African campaign.

Thus a Merlin 61 or V-1650-3, which generated
some 1,700 hp at war emergency power, may well
have given the P-40 a fighting chance against the
Bf-109G. I think performance might have been
even better had they retained the more streamlined
undernose of the P-40B/C used by Chennault’s Flying Tigers,
rather than that of the P-40D/E/F versions with the
bulky drag-inducing air intakes. This advantage was
evident in the Hawker Typhoon, in which one prototype
with the radiatiors moved to the wings, reached 450 mph
compared to a top speed of just over 400 mph in the
production version with the big radiator intake under
the nose, similar to that in the later P-40 versions.

P-40s, even with the Merlin 61 or V-1650-3 Packard,
may still have been outmatched and very likely suffer
far higher losses than the German fighters over
Europe, but I think that would have been acceptable
considering the fact that the B-17s and B-24s would not
have been left to fight it out alone most of the way to
and from the target, with their horrendous losses in
planes and lives (when one bomber goes down, ten men
go down, compared to just one in a fighter). In essence,
the P-40 would have served its purpose as an escort.

Finally, Saburo Sakai, when asked which Allied fighter
he considered his most dangerous opponent, mentioned
“…… a well-handled P-40.”

With respect you are ignoring a couple of basic things.

To be a long range escort fighter (average mission time could be 8 hours) the fighter needs to be designed to carry the fuel necessary for the mission, it needs to operate at least at the height of the bombers, and lastly it needs to be able to carry the fuel plus armament.

The North African experience is not much help because in North Africa the P40’s job was army support and ground attack. Put simple most combat took place at low altitude. At heights below 15,000 feet the P40 was good and gave the 109s trouble. Above 15,000 feet it was far less effective.

In Europe the 8th Air Force bombing missions took place at between 25,000 and 30,000 feet. They needed to because it kept the bombers as high up as possible and avoided a lot of flak. The German fighters which intercepted the bombers were therefore fighting at heights on average 10,000 feet above the useful combat altitude of the P40.

The design had no capacity for the fuel tankage system as adopted on the P51 so not only could it not have been adapted for the increased tankage to accompany the bombers, but it would not have been able to defend the bombers because they were operating around 10,000 feet above its best combat altitude.

The improved Typhoon you mention was in fact the Tempest and it also did not have long range capability built into its design. Only when the Allies were well into Europe after D Day were Tempests able to escort bombers.

Lastly you are ignoring the basic American bomber strategy until late 1943 which was posited upon bombers being able to fly in defensive box formations, defending themselves with massed gunfire, and then being able to bomb with pinpoint accuracy. The failure of this strategic policy was the impetus for long range fighter escorts. None of which had been conceived in that role in 1941.

Only through design changes as the war unfolded did their escort capabilities become recognised. In fact the P51 was not even conceived of by the British as a fighter, they saw it originally as a recon and ground attack aircraft. Why? because it originally had the same engine as the P40 which was no good for work over 15,000 feet. Once North American and the British saw the benefits of putting a Merlin in it did it become the world beater it was. But even just an engine change would not have been sufficient if it didn’t have the capacity to carry lots of fuel, with a wing that was not the aerodynamic limiter that the wing of the P40 was.

As far as Sakai is concerned he may have been impressed by the P40, but it was not its manoeverability, it was its speed in a dive escaping Zeros and the punch of its .50 cal. mgs.

Crewed by leprechauns I presume.

As I had a few minutes spare, I finally got around to reading the October (yes, I know- i’m WAY behind) 2005 Flypast. More specifically, the ‘Salute to the Hurricane’ suppliment.

On page 21 of this, there is a picture of a two-seater Hurricane, in service with the Soviet Air Force. This has a sace for a rear facing machinegunner.

I was wondering how, in light of the additional weight, this configiration performed against foe. I mean- I assume it was re-designed to be a light bomber during Barbarossa, as opposed to a fighter, so (again I am guessing) armament would be perhaps two cannon and two small bombs. However, I would have thought that the standard Hurricane would have been a much better fighter than most aircraft the Soviet Union could have mustered at the time, so I am intregued as to why they decided to use the Hurricane as a light bomber, instead of perhaps using the I-16, or or other aircraft for ground attack.

Does anyone have any more information- even if just to shoot me down in flames!

I thought that this could provide a few moments entertainment and debate. Over to you comrades!

BARNOWL

New one to me – the only Russian two-seaters I knew of were some locally modified as trainers. Some being used as hacks as well.

I think that the Lewis was also an American invention. Britain had very productive gun industries but not such good designs (e.g. Enfield revolvers v. superior S&W or Colt product).

Not quite – speaking from some experience of these (revolvers) whilst the S & W is an excellent design, the Colts of the period are marred by an excessive trigger pull.

You are right about the original Enfield Mk1 which had a most peculiar system where the cylinder was jacked forward to extract the fires cases and for loading. It was out of production and serious use by WW2. Its major problem was not stopping power but difficulty of loading and a rather sensitive action.

However Enfield went on to licence produce the Webley top-break revolvers, following a contractual fight between Webley and the British Government in 1930, which were extensively used in WW2, as were their Webley made brothers and these are superlative service weapons. Smooth trigger pull, strong and very easy in the hand to manage. For sheer stopping power the only equal of the .455 round used in the larger calibre Webley revolvers is the .45ACP or .45Colt.

Many of the Enfield/Webleys were chambered in .38 calibre – I have my eye on one which is stamped to show issue to the RAF. It would fit nicely with my .455 S & W which has WW1 RFC issue marks(No 43 Squadron).

Coupled with all this is that they are a very rugged pistol and every bit the equal of the Smith & Wesson. The British revolvers were the equal and in many cases far better than their foreign rivals. Unfortunately just another industry the silly succession of British Governments have let die.

What a load of tosh is being circulated by some here.

Yellow was not originally a heraldic colour Gold (Correctly ‘Or’) is represented by yellow on some versions of arms, but was originally only to be used as a background. And what is often reported by laymen as ‘yellow’ in arms is actually gold.

From here. Oh dear, that kind of confuses things, doesn’t it?

I’ve yet to see any attempt to explain who would be responsible for adding ‘yellow’ to a unit’s badge, and how they would go about it.

Still, repeating old wives tales beats thinking for some, obviously.

I think that by trying to introduce facts into this discussion you are pushing **** up hill, 😀